State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Manas Kumar Pati
2014 Latest Caselaw 4323 Del

$~3
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.L.P. 436/2014
       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                            ..... Petitioner
                     Represented by:         Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for
                                             the State.
                         versus

       MANAS KUMAR PATI                                  ..... Respondent
                   Represented by:           None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

                         ORDER

% 10.09.2014

1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgement dated May 13, 2014 acquitting Manas Kumar Pati for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2. The investigation was set into motion on June 30, 2012 when HC Amar Pal was patrolling in the area of his beat and found one person lying in injured condition below the statue of Asaf Ali. Lot of blood had oozed out. He reported the matter to PS Darya Ganj which was recorded vide DD No.30A, Ex.PW-6/A. ASI Virender Kumar, PW-16 along with Constable Mohit and Constable Jai Ram reached the spot. ASI Virender Kumar inspected the body and found an injury mark on the left eyebrow of the deceased. The deceased was found in drunken condition. A big stone which was blood stained, half bottle of liquor and one packet of namkeen were also found lying there.

3. As per the post mortem report Ex.PW-19/A Dr.Suresh Chand Ex.PW-19 noticed the following injuries:

"External examination:

i. Contused lacerated wound, 5.5 cm x 4.5 cm x bone deep, present at left side of forehead, just above left eyebrow, 2 cm away from midline.

ii. Contusion, 2.5 cm x 2 cm, reddish, present over the right side of occipital region, 5.5 cm above and behind the helix of right ear and 3 cm right to midline.

Head Scalp- Effusion of blood present in scalp layers at left frontal and right occipital region of head.

Skull- Comminuted fracture of skull at left frontal bone over an area of 8 cm x 7 cm. Sutural fracture at right lambdoid suture present, extending to right middle cranial fossa.

Brain- weight 1224 gm. Diffuse subdural haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage present all over the brain."

4. Dr.Suresh Chand opined the cause of death to be due to cranio- cerebral damage, consequent upon blunt force impact to the head. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by blunt force. Injury Nos.1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively. Time since death was approximately seven days.

5. On the autopsy report FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered on DD No.30A. On the left forearm of the deceased

'Jagdish Parvati' was tattooed. From the clothes of the deceased document relating to PS Raiwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand was recovered which contained the address of one Jagdish Chand Pandey which was not legible. Hence efforts were made to trace the identity of the deceased from PS Raiwala, Dehradun, Uttarkhand. On August 09, 2012 one Anand Pandey, a relative of the deceased came to Delhi to attend the camp of Baba Ram Dev and met constable Shiv Raj. He identified the photograph of the deceased in the police station and disclosed the name of the deceased as Jagdish Chand Pandey resident of Village Dhaul Kanda Patti Romdanda, Tehsil and District Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. He informed that the deceased was the brother-in-law of his brother-in-law. Information was sent to the village of the deceased to his wife Parvati and son Amit Pandey by HC Netra Pal who identified the deceased from the photograph however, stated that they had no concern with the deceased as he never cared for them during his lifetime.

6. On inquiry it was revealed that the deceased was killed by one Manas and thus on August 13, 2012 Manas was apprehended. Manas lead the police party to Farman Hotel and Restaurant at Tawru, Haryana where the accused was working till June 29, 2012 and in the evening he along with the deceased had left for Delhi. It was alleged that the accused came to Delhi along with the deceased. As per the disclosure of the accused, the deceased while consuming liquor at Asaf Ali Park deceased in inebriated condition told that he had taken money against the kidney from Sanjay Bihari. On hearing this, the accused felt something fishy as earlier also the deceased had taken

`5,000/- from Sanjay Bihari against his kidney but he never donated his kidney and absconded with `5,000/-. So the accused thought that the deceased had introduced with some other party and he would get handsome money in lieu of the kidney of the accused and under the influence of liquor he killed the deceased by giving a blow of heavy stone on his head.

7. From the prosecution case it is evident that there was no witness of the last seen, no recovery of any weapon of offence nor any incriminating article from Manas to connect him with the offence. The only evidence available with the prosecution is the fact that the deceased and accused Manas had together come from Tawru, Haryana where they were working in the restaurant. PW-1 Mohd.Tarif the owner of Farman Hotel and Restaurant has claimed that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused Manas before his murder however, the same is not incriminating against Manas because PW-1 had seen them at Tawru and not at Delhi.

8. The prosecution case is that Manas made an extra judicial confession before Vinod Kumar, PW-2. Vinod Kumar deposed that he knew Manas for the past three-four years and on July 06, 2012 at about 8.00-8.30 PM, Manas in drunken state had met him outside his house. He told him that some person had cheated him and he had given him beatings. Manas further stated that the said person had planned to sell Manas's kidney and the said person had already taken `30,000/- from someone. He disclosed the name of the person as Fauzi Pandey and stated that he killed Fauzi Pandey by giving him stone blow at Delhi Gate. This witness has made material

improvements in his deposition before the Court and has not been consistent in his testimony. Moreover, this witness stated that Manas was in an inebriated condition when he made this confessional statement. Hence the extra judicial confession made by Manas to this witness cannot be relied upon.

9. Further as per the disclosure statement Manas stated that the deceased had come to sell his own kidney however, as per the post- mortem report the deceased's left kidney was found to be missing and thus he had already donated/sold the same.

10. There being no cogent, convincing evidence against Manas except the extra judicial confession which also cannot be relied upon as noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court committed no error in acquitting Manas. Hence the leave to appeal petition is dismissed.

11. T.C.R. be sent back.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 'vn'